Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s

Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.

You’re overlooking Bennett’s actual application for a verification. He requested that Onaka verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.

Onaka never verified any of that, and the only lawful reason for him not to verify it is if those are not the claims made on a valid record. Since Onaka verified that those ARE the claims made on the record the HDOH has, that leaves the non-validity of the record itself as the only lawful reason for Onaka’s failure to verify those things.

You mean the information on the request form? That form is designed to request a copy of a record, not to request verification of the record's facts--Bennett just wrote in "verification in lieu of cc." If someone was asking for a "certified copy of a birth record"--the standard use for that form--they'd be providing the info to identify the form, not info they want verified.

Besides, all that info is on the COLB. If Onaka verifies that the info on the COLB matches their records, isn't he also de facto verifying that the info on the request form matches their records? So once again, how would he verify the info on the request form beyond verifying that it matched their records?

The HDOH website says that the procedure for getting a letter of verification is the same as for getting a certified copy, and links to the application form. They also say that a request for verification has to be done via snail-mail or in person.

Whether information matches their records legally means nothing if their record is non-valid. What’s the legal use of information matching a non-valid record? Saying that it matches proves nothing, unless it is somewhere specifically stated that the record it matches is legally valid. That has never been said. And the 1960-64 birth index has been specifically altered to include non-valid records, so the birth index also proves nothing about the validity of the record - and actually RAISES suspicions.

But the way a verification is done is that a person submits the information to be verified, and Onaka writes a letter of verification repeating back the facts that he verifies as true. Anything he doesn’t repeat back on his letter is what they can’t verify because it is not claimed on a legally valid record.

So him not verifying a submitted fact is a big deal. The statute requires Onaka to verify ANY information submitted, if he can certify that it is the way the even actually happened (which is the case if the record is legally valid/prima facia evidence).

The only reason for Onaka to verify the birth city as Honolulu but NOT verify the birth island as Oahu is if he can’t certify that Obama who was born in Honolulu was born on the island of Oahu. He already verified that all the claims actually on the White House image are also on the record they have, so why would he be able to verify Honolulu but not be able to verify Oahu? The logical explanation is that he is not actually verifying Honolulu as the place of birth but just that Honolulu is INDICATED (claimed) on the BC whose existence he is verifying (which is also what the grammatics of his sentence says....)

I forgot to answer your last question. This is how Onaka would verify the truth of submitted claims - without any references to anything “matching” anything:

I, Alvin Onaka, pursuant to HRS 338-14.3 verify that the Hawaii Department of Health has on record a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama.

I verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.

In addition, I verify that the following facts from the birth certificate reflect the true circumstances of the birth event:

1. Hospital: Kapiolani (blah, blah, blah.....)

I also verify that the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the White House website at (blah blah blah) is a true and accurate representation of the original record on file.

Saying that it matches proves nothing, unless it is somewhere specifically stated that the record it matches is legally valid.

So is that the "smoking gun" here--the absence of that statement? I'm wondering how you think Onaka's reply would have been different if in fact he knows the birth record is "legally valid/prima facia evidence." He verified Bennett's list of points, and he verified that the COLB (which contains all the other information Bennett submitted on the request form) matches their records. If he'd just added "..., which is a legally valid record," would that render your argument moot?

I'm sorry, I'm sure you feel like you've explained this a zillion times. But I've never been able to follow all the details of your argument, and since you offered the short version here, I thought I might try to clear up some things.

I am relatively new to FreeRepublic, consequently: caveat emptor.

My perspective is that of an unschooled, hoi polloi. Therefore, I concede that Mr. Obama may be eligible to serve as POTUS. Apart from that concession, those arguing against an investigation regarding eligibility, should acknowledge, that a rational determination cannot be made without an open investigation into the inconsistencies and claims made against the POTUS. Those who peremptorily wish the controversy away, should concede that only neutral forensic experts subject to cross examination be allowed to examine the primary evidence and only then can this speculation be resolved.

The obvious conclusion would to demand that our representative dedicate as much of there resources to resolving this potential constitutional crisis as they dedicate to appearing on various news outlets. But I have little hope, some, but little.

How many verifications from Hawaii have you reviewed?

If in Bennett’s verification Dr. Onaka would not verify the island, why verify the hospital that is on that island? If Dr. Onaka would not verify the mother’s name, why verify the date she signed the BC?

Dr. Onaka verified the 5 or 6 items on the request form by issuing the verification in the first place.

“But what would that be?”

Here is a simple answer for anyone in the Hawaii DOH that has access and has seen the actual, real ‘records’ and their supporting documentation.

If those ‘records’ and supporting documentation has any material that is different or if the history of the ‘record’ over history been amended, replace, altered, etc. and varies or is different or has additional information beyond the (blatant) forgery posted at the WH then they should indicate that the WH posting is a fraud. It is their responsibility to do so. Otherwise they are supporting and aiding in state document forgery. Without looking that must be a crime in Hawaii.

So again, in simple terms. Not calling out fraud that is this well known, when it has basically ‘crossed your desk’ is criminal.

Onaka’s signature is on WH image and he has sent the letters. Clearly he has a right to access the entire record and its associated history.

Its obvious - if the document and the record were as posted at the WH someone would pay for lots of certified actual Hawaii certified copies to hand out. Instead there is a quick meeting with photocopies and a posting of an obvious fraudulent digital image.

The basic issue is ‘document forgery’. Is what the WH posted a real Hawaii record or not? If not - its forgery. And Onaka knows it (or should know it). He should call it out. Instead he dances through ‘in lue of’ procedures. In lue of because what the WH posted was a fraud.

The only complete sentence Onaka used to say exactly what he was verifying was his statement that he verifies that they have a birth certificate on file for Obama. That is the only FACT that Onaka verified.

All the rest is just saying what is claimed on the non-valid BC they have. Because if everything on the White House image is on the record they have, Onaka has to verify the truth of everything submitted or else verify the truth of none of it.

It’s clear that he never said a peep to verify male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama.

If he can’t verify the truth of those things even though they’re on the record, then he can’t verify the truth of ANYTHING that’s on the record - and it is thus obvious that whatever he did verify about the other things, it wasn’t that they were the truth.

What I’ve said is totally consistent and logical: He didn’t verify the truth of anything, but only verified that those are the claims “from the birth certificate”, as Bennett requested. There is no cognitive dissonance in what I’ve said.

You, on the other hand, have to give some logical reason why all those inconsistencies exist on this verification. Why verify Honolulu but not Oahu? Why verify Kapiolani but not Oahu? Why verify date of informant’s signature but not verify Stanley Ann Dunham? Why verify date filed but not date of birth?

See, the cognitive dissonance is glaring, if Onaka is actually verifying the truth of any of the birth facts on that birth record. If he can verify the truth of any birth facts, it’s a legally valid record and he can (and must) verify the truth of ANYTHING submitted for verification that’s actually on that record.

No one wants to be the one that sets off the trip wire to the claymore mine this is attached to.

Bennett took a cut - a weak one. Onaka answered the bell - carefully. And all was declared good.

What Onaka could do to terminate this is easy. He can simply indicate that the image posted by the WH is match - both information wise and image wise to what Hawaii has on file. Then he can provide a certified printed copy of the actual original LFBC record and show it matches exactly what the WH has posted.

I am sure this is coming once someone can get the digital library updated. After all the ‘originals’ have been transferred to a digital (likely optical) library years ago. But the challenge with these read only optical libraries is that they changing a record is hard - on purpose - since they were designed to permanently archive paper documents.

No official in office anywhere wants this to escalate. That is obvious.

Well-said. And that’s actually what HI statute says - that non-valid records have no legal probative value until their probative value is determined when the record is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. All most of us have wanted is for that to happen. Obama has spent a lot of time and money making sure it doesn’t happen, and the courts have said it is nobody’s business. Congress is too chicken to do anything.

It’s a sad, sad mess.

The same. That’s why I don’t claim to know what is the standard format for a verification. You may be right that a standard verification format would include specific statements about the six items that are included on the request form or you may be wrong. Those six items may be implicitly verified by the issuance of the verification.

I just find it interesting that the items not specifically verified in Bennett’s verification are the items on the request form. But Dr. Onaka has no problem verifing everything else on the BC. While also certifing that all the information on the pdf matches all the information on the original BC.

On the whitehouse pdf what island is named in box 6b? And according to all three known certified verifications that information matches the information in box 6b on the original BC.

If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?

See, no matter what argument you try to make, Onaka’s own inconsistencies will bite you in the butt. The only explanation that explains it all is that Onaka verified only that the specifically-mentioned birth facts are “from the birth certificate” (as Bennett specifically worded his request ON THE PAGE BESIDES THE APPLICATION) - that is, that they are what is contained on the legally non-valid record (which is why he cannot verify anything from the actual application form).

Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka can’t interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. There’s no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things. He only snuck in Honolulu by saying that the birth record they have “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.

Do not forget that the word he is willing to use is “matches”. He is not willing to use the words “is identical to”; he will not verify that, even though he has to verify it if he can. Matches makes no difference if the record is non-valid, and if it meant the same thing as “identical” he would have verified what Kobach actually submitted for verification: that the information contained in the WH image is “identical to” the information contained in the genuine record. He also wouldn’t verify that the WH image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.

If what you think he’s saying is what he was really saying, he would have just verified exactly what he was asked. He refused, and that gives it away that what he said is NOT that the WH image is genuine and identical to the original.

“If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?”

We don’t know what Dr. Onaka was thinking. Maybe he thought he was just being thorough by adding the statement about being born in “Honolulu, Hawaii.”

Hawaii code says “A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”

The problem as I see it is that we have three unique verifications that were based on three unique requests. We don’t know what standard format for a verfication is. I would guess that if I asked for a verification of a birth and if all of the items on my request form matched the original BC, I would not get an item by item verification but only a simply “I verify the existence of the original record” or words to that effect. Implict in that is that the items on the request form are “as stated by the applicant.”

But if I enter wrong information in the request form (such as Kauai instead of Oahu), then maybe I would receive an item by item verification with the wrong items not being verified.

Who knows.

“Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka can’t interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. There’s no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things.”

I’m not following your logic here. According to Bennett’s e-mail to Dr. Onaka,

“Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:”

Bennett specifically asks Dr. Onaka to “verify the following items from the record of birth”. So if Dr.Onaka cannot verify the request form items, how can he verify the additional items that come from the same record of birth?

Are you saying that Bennett’s request form says Oahu but the original birth record says something else?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.